< March 18
March 20 >

March 19

File:Thomas Kallampally at St Antonys School.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Pppery (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:01, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thomas Kallampally at St Antonys School.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Subhashcj ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 
File:Thomas Kallampally.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Subhashcj ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Dubious own-work claims. The initial upload of File:Thomas Kallampally at St Antonys School.jpg indicates that the image was lifted from an unspecified website. File:Thomas Kallampally.jpg is a portrait photograph that has been so heavily edited, from the background to the subject's seemingly distorted face, that authorship is doubtful. c:COM:PCP applies. ✗plicit 00:47, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Hylaeus paumako DNLR 2025.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 12:06, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hylaeus paumako DNLR 2025.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Viriditas ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails WP:NFC#1 as anyone in Hawaii with access to the reserve can picture the bee. (CC) Tbhotch™ 02:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The wildlife reserve is closed to the public. Nobody in Hawaii has access to the reserve except for a few individuals from the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources and because it is so remote and isolated it is rarely visited except to fix fencing and maintain the firebreaks. In fact, the area is so remote and isolated, this bee was only found in this area because it was the first major survey of that area in a century or so. I should also note that the bee is rare and the number of individuals is unknown. After capturing specimens for identification, a second trip to the wildlife refuge was planned. The second trip yielded no sightings of the bee. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Warner Communications Inc..svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Warner Communications Inc..svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GachaDog ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It seems that GachaDog was confused to differentiate between fair use and public domain image. Here in the image, this logo didn't qualify for such so we just change the licence. We attempt to transfer the file to Wikimedia Commons but the bot deleted the original file. Could anyone please transfer the file to Commons with original file copy attached. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:CBS Records.svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:CBS Records.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by GachaDog ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

It seems that GachaDog was confused to differentiate between fair use and public domain image. Here in the image, this logo didn't qualify for such so we just change the licence. We attempt to transfer the file to Wikimedia Commons but the bot deleted the original file. Could anyone please transfer the file to Commons with original file copy attached. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Machine Girl MG1.mp3

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machine Girl MG1.mp3 (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by AstralAlley ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

There is no sourced critical commentary to justify the inclusion of this file. Skyshiftertalk 15:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. ✗plicit 23:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Hezbollah.svg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by RaphaelQS ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Replaceable with https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:InfoboxHez.PNG violating Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria#1 Isla🏳️‍⚧ 19:50, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved in this one beyond saying the replaceable option provided says "This symbol is fictitious", so it shouldn't be used. Buffs (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Poplar bluff tornado 2025.jpeg

File:Poplar bluff tornado 2025.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EF5 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Fails NFCC1 & 8. This doesn't significantly benefit the reader and article and CCTV footage almost certainly exists. Tacking on File:Tylertown wedge tornado 2025.webp for the same reason. JayCubby 21:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CCTV footage doesn't exist, I've conducted a relatively broad search and haven't found any non-movable cameras that captured the events (Diaz just got lucky). It gives a metric of the tornado's size; not sure how that fails NFCC1/8. It's generally accepted that NFFs of tornadoes are appropriate. EF5 21:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:2011 Cullman–Arab tornado#Fair-use imagery. — EF5 21:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter's characterization of why we don't permit gratuitous NFC is accurate. Looks like there might be PD footage of the storm at https://www.facebook.com/wxktmelvin/videos/live-camera-in-poplar-bluff-missouri-from-my-old-station-as-a-tornado-warned-sto/495701666948134/ also. JayCubby 01:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general consensus that was had on the Commons (including from an English Wikipedia admin, who confirmed the NFF used for the 2011 Joplin tornado article is valid) was that tornado photos almost always will qualify under NFF criteria as long as no free-to-use photos/videos exist. This consensus and admin confirmation came following a very huge and long RFC on the Commons, after the deprecation of a copyright template that was highly-used for tornado photographs. To me, the free-cam-video found by JayCubby would indeed mean Poplar Bluff's NFF does not pass the criteria. However, no evidence has been presented of Tylertown having free-use-videos/photos, so under WP:AGF & WP:ONUS, one can presume a thorough check was done by the NFF uploader.
To sum it up (as of this message): Delete Poplar Bluff NFF, Keep Tylertown NFF per past consensus on how NFFs of tornadoes pass the NFF criteria. If a free-to-use photo/video of Tylertown is found, then the NFF should be deleted. Until then, it is indeed a valid NFF. Hopefully that helps explain my characterization clearly JayCubby. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn’t even visible in that video. EF5 11:41, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re-pinging since my comment appears hidden under WeatherWriter's reply, but @JayCubby: there is no tornado visible in that video. — EF5 15:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re your point, that's true, but it still is free media of the storm. My other issue with these is NFCC8. Does an unremarkable photograph of this tornado contribute something to the article that a photograph of a similar tornado couldn't? I will say that NFCC8 doesn't apply to files like File:1997 Jarrell tornado dead man walking.jpeg, where the photograph itself is an object of discussion, but that and this are not equal. JayCubby 15:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, I get that. An image of a similar tornado wouldn't be helpful, as all tornadoes look different and we are already lacking on free-to-use images of tornadoes due to a massive image purge on Commons. There is a free video of the storm, but I see neither a tornado or virtually anything identifiable. EF5 15:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to JayCubby Yes and no to your NFCC8 concern. NFC criteria is "most generous" (admin words) on English Wikipedia, for being more like a "low-bar" to pass. NFFs of tornadoes cannot just be for decoration. However, it is extraordinarily common (i.e. extremely rare if not) for RS to use a specific adjective with tornadoes. For example if you hear "large tornado". That does not really give a clear picture in the readers mind of what size the tornado is. An NFF of said tornado showing what "large" actually means passes NFCC8, since it "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic" (NFCC8). That was why, generally speaking, tornado NFCs are allowed on Wikipedia; since adjectives are almost always associated with tornadoes (in a ton of reliable sources), and a photo of the tornado clears up what that adjective actually means. Random proof of that can even be seen during Tornado outbreak of March 13–16, 2025 (happened days ago). One of the first news articles I found in a generic google search of "Kentwood" & "tornado" (one of the stronger tornadoes during the outbreak), I found WVUE-DT publishing an article literally titled "Large tornado tears through small town outside Kentwood; no injuries reported". Hopefully that better explains what the Commons consensus was on tornado photos. In reality, only free-to-use photos actually prevent a single (not multiple) NFC tornado photo from being used in an article/section on a tornado, given the fact adjectives are always used. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EF5 -- The article doesn't say all tornadoes are different. It categorizes them. We do something with aviation accident-related articles that could be applied here. The Poplar Bluff tornado was a wedge tornado, as far as I can tell, and there are plenty of free wedge tornado images. No need to use an NFCC tornado/plane picture of the exact thing when a similar free tornado/plane picture gets the point across. JayCubby 02:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’d suggest bringing this up as a larger proposal, because I strongly oppose this. We do aircraft because they look exactly like the plane in the accident. EF5 11:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not too familiar with RFC procedures, though you are welcome to start a discussion. JayCubby 17:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JayCubby: Will do. To clarify on the NFCC8 thing, we use "similar" planes because they are the same model, correct? The paint job may be different, but the model is similar. Tornadoes don't come in "models" ("classifications" vary wildly, a wedge tornado can be anywhere from 0.5 to 2.6 miles wide) and I genuinely couldn't tell you two tornadoes that look exactly alike or are of the exact same width. Sure, the color of the tornado (paint job) may be the same, but no tornadoes are created equal. Saying "a tornado that looks kind of like the one that hit so-and-so" in an infobox is just doing a disservice to readers. That also doesn't account for the fact that we are already seriously lacking on free and recent tornado photos. EF5 17:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2025_March_19
No tags for this post.